Know, all who see or hear this document made in the form of a
chirograph, that certain disagreements
having arisen between the burgesses of Nottingham on the one part, and
the burgesses of Derby on the other, concerning certain exactions made
by the parties relating to tolls as well as to sales of living livestock
or domesticated animals, and other things indicated below, thanks to
the mediation of many friends by the express consent of each community,
these disputes have now been settled, at
Sandiacre as of 26 July 1279, to
the following effect: viz., the burgesses of both Nottingham and Derby
have granted, on behalf of themselves and their heirs and successors in
the liberties of those boroughs, that henceforth any of their burgesses
who buys any animal whatsoever, whether domesticated or livestock, within
the liberties of the other borough should bring the sellers of those animals
before the bailiffs of the liberty  before exiting the liberty
with the said animals  for purpose of paying their toll thereon,
if he so wishes. If it should happen that any seller refuses to pay
his toll thereon, by claiming some kind of liberty, the buyers are allowed
to cancel their purchase of the animals, if they wish; or, if they prefer
and they see it as expedient to them, to go ahead
[with the transaction] by paying
the toll on behalf of the seller. After which, when with their animals
they go past the street wardens who are called "Gategeters", or past
other [officers] of the liberty of
the borough where the purchase was made, who will require evidence from
them of toll [having been paid] on
the said animals, they can be cleared for passage by giving their oath
that they have appeared before the bailiffs in the manner described.
If the buyers are thereupon prevented by any representative of the borough
from freely passing through, or are arrested, and can clearly prove this
to have been the case, then whoever obstructed them shall  under
the supervision of trustworthy men of both towns  compensate them
for damages suffered as a result of the obstruction or arrest. Yet if
it happens that any of these burgesses, of either of the towns, or his
servant, dares to escape by himself or with his own livestock out of
the liberty, taking with him the aforesaid animals (other than his own),
in order to avoid paying toll, and this can be clearly proven, then
the offender shall pay a fine of two shillings to the bailiffs for
his offence; furthermore, the animals will be held under arrest until
the bailiffs have been fully paid the fine and the toll. If any servant
convicted of such an offence is found not to have the means to pay
the two shillings, then his master shall answer to the bailiffs for as
much of the two shillings as the servant's
[due] wages cover and shall not have
the servant in his service while any of the two shillings remains unpaid,
nor shall any other burgess take him into his service until the bailiffs
are fully satisfied for the offence; and if thereafter he
[i.e. the master], or any other burgess
of either town, will have him in his service ....[The remainder of the transcript is missing.]

DISCUSSION

This case provides an example of the complications that could arise in
the context of the conflicting rights of boroughs to exact tolls on
commercial transactions, while at the same time claiming (by right of
charter grants) exemption for their burgesses from such tolls. Here
the concept of toll is more of a levy or tax on a sale, as opposed to
an import/export custom, and who paid the toll was something negotiable
within the bargain made between seller and buyer. If the seller agreed
to pay part of all of the toll, then tried to evade this by claiming
exemption through burgess status (perhaps during negotiations hiding
that fact from the prospective purchaser), borough authorities 
determined to obtain their toll one way or the other  might then
demand it of the buyer, who would be rightfully aggrieved. Under
the above agreement, the seller was offered the options of backing out
of the sale (even after the bargain was agreed), or of deciding it was
in his best interests to absorb the additional cost of the toll. A third,
but illegal, option was for the buyer to try to get out of town without
having to shoulder the additional, unexpected expense of the toll;
whether a dramatic flight is envisaged, or escape via fraud  such
as a false oath, or disguising newly-purchased beasts among those already
owned  is less clear from the document.

Derby was not in a position to claim a general exemption for its citizens
from tolls. Its first extant royal charter of liberties was granted by
John in 1204. Nottingham on the other hand had been granted by Henry II
(ca.1160) the right to collect tolls not only in the borough itself but
along an extensive stretch of the River Trent, from Thrumpton to
the south-west as far as Newark-on-Trent to the north-east, and other
waterways between Rempstone (south) and Retford (27 miles to
the north-north-east). It obtained an exemption from toll from
Prince John, throughout his earldom, ca.1189, extended throughout
the kingdom in 1200, after he became king. Nottingham's right to collect
toll having preceded its neighbour Derby's exemption from toll, this
would have been a decisive factor had there been a legal battle.

NOTES

"chirograph"
an agreement between two parties in which the text was written twice,
once above the other, and the document then cut into the two halves,
in a.somewhat irregular way that would identify  when the upper
and lower halves were fitted back together  each half as
an authentic part of the original (to prevent forgery).

"Sandiacre"
Sandiacre lies about halfway between Derby and Nottingham.